Inversión exterior

Three papers referred to the experiences of trainees who identified as being from BAME backgrounds. Two studies employed qualitative methods to look at the experience of BAME trainees (Rajan & Shaw, 2008; Shah, Wood et al., 2012), whilst the remaining study provided a reflective account looking at the impact of racism on the clinical psychology training experience (Adetimole, Afuape & Vara, 2005).

The reflective account by Adetimole and colleagues (2005) was written in retrospect by three female qualified clinical psychologists who self-identified as being Black and all qualified from the same training course, but at different times. They reflected on their experiences related to racism and identity development whilst they were still on the training course. This paper highlights some important and key elements of the nuances of institutional racism and micro aggressions that occur within the clinical psychology arena; and the

implications of this on BAME trainees. Examples of this include lectures focusing on “White people’s experience, including White people’s experience of us as Black people, further reinforcing and locating difference within Black people” (Adetimole et al., 2005, p. 12-13). They also spoke about their position as Black trainees and how they felt positioned by

trainers as “different” and “deprived”, thus their concerns would be racialised and they would be viewed as “struggling”, whereas their assumption was that White trainees’ concerns would not be racialised. In an equally unhelpful way, they felt that their White supervisors

overcompensated by this positioning of them and would therefore avoid criticising them and would excessively praise them.

Additionally, they reflect on the difficulties of the drive to recruit more BAME trainees and how this may have led to the assumption that Black trainees were lucky instead of hardworking. In contrast to Dodzro’s (2016) opinion, they found that the targeted BAME

mentor schemes perpetuated the idea that people from BAME backgrounds need more support than White peers and that issues related to the BAME experience should be spoken about “outside of a White institution”. They also described instances of overt racism,

whereby peers would express racist views in front of them. These instances had an impact on what they described as the cyclic processes of identity development which they engaged in. They mentioned going through stages such as conforming to the White British norm, disagreeing with this norm and re-establishing their identities as Black women and

recognising being Black as positive; such as the important and unique insights they bring to the profession.

In terms of suggestions for how BAME experiences can be enhanced, the authors mention the role of supervisors and how discussions of race should be occurring within supervisory relationships. Their reflexivity is noted throughout the paper and they mention the personal dilemmas they faced in writing the paper, such as feeling they were betraying the profession; but wanting to remain true to themselves. However, in line with previous

critiques, the reflections of this paper may not be representative of other BAME trainees from other courses or even other BAME trainees from this particular course. In terms of the

evaluation criteria (Tracy, 2010), with this being a reflective account of the authors’

experiences, claims within the account are based on their personal experiences. The paper is written in retrospect over the three year training period. However, the time elapsed between finishing training and writing this paper is not stated. Therefore, it may be worth noting that whilst these are their real and lived experiences, their views and commentary on these experiences may have changed over time. As there is also no evidence of written reflections at the time of these events occurring, it is difficult to ascertain whether they experienced these events in the same way at the time of occurrence.

Rajan & Shaw’s (2008) qualitative study utilised semi-structured interviews with eight BAME trainees from different UK courses and employed Interpretative

Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to look at their experiences whilst training. The key themes that emerged from the data included “professional issues” where participants felt that their cultural backgrounds and BAME status was an advantage in terms of entering the profession. Participants spoke about mentioning the importance of cultural diversity within the profession in their application forms and received positive feedback from supervisors about this. However, findings also spoke to the ethnocentricity of mainstream psychological theories and how this can be an alienating experience for some BAME trainees as these ideas are different to the ideas they were brought up with.

Another important theme was looking at the experiences within the classroom and cohort. This encompassed the Eurocentric views and ways of conceptualising mental health within all cultures and the lack of challenge or discussion around this. This meant that participants felt isolated in their cohorts. This also meant that trainees were positioned as being experts of cultural diversity, which often felt as though they were “cheating people”.

The final theme referred to the personal impact of training. This theme highlighted the difficulties trainees experienced in integrating their personal and professional identities, such as feeling they needed to forego their cultural and ethnic identities and assimilate into their cohorts and the profession. The study echoed experiences mentioned in Kinouani et al’s (2016) and Adetimole et al’s (2005) reflective accounts of the difficulties of blending their personal and professional values and beings. This study differs somewhat from Adetimole et al., (2005) with regards to viewing their BAME status as a positive tool in gaining an entry point into the profession. When evaluating the study (Tracy, 2010), the use of quotations throughout the paper highlight the transparency of the data and emerging themes. However,

there is little insight provided about the author’s position and vested interest within this research.

In another qualitative study, Shah et al., (2012), interviewed nine BAME trainee clinical psychologists about their experience of training. This study aimed to build on Rajan & Shaw’s (2008) and Adetimole et al.’s (2005) studies by exploring further the racial and cultural differences which may occur in working relationships and the strengths and limitations of the BAME trainee clinical psychologist position. A similar study design to Rajan & Shaw (2008) was used, in that semi-structured interviews were carried out with trainees, whose data was analysed using IPA. Building on the previous studies (Adetimole et al., 2005; Rajan & Shaw, 2008), a key finding of this study showed the discomfort, fear and anxiety trainees experienced in raising issues and conversations about race and difference within their cohorts and in supervisory relationships in case they became further isolated and marginalised. The authors conclude that the onus should be on supervisors to raise issues of race and difference, where it previously was with trainees. Therefore, there was a need for training courses to be aware of these issues within the training context.

Another key finding of this study was the safe space trainees felt with other BAME trainees in order to find support. The study also highlights the flexibility and versatility that comes with being from a BAME background, for example, trainees also found that their cultural identity became a factor in connecting with others (although it is unclear whether this connection was in relation to service users or other professionals). When evaluated against Tracy’s (2010) quality criteria, the study provides rich rigor in that there are quotes used throughout the paper to illustrate key themes and points. The authors’ theoretical assumptions are not made explicit, nor are credibility checks mentioned, making sincerity and credibility difficult to assess. The study has similar findings to previous studies and makes a significant contribution to the evidence base by focusing on the strengths of BAME trainees, as well as

highlighting issues within supervisory relationships and safe, supportive spaces for BAME trainees.